[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ditching 40cal (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 2/12/2011 11:12:46 PM EDT
|
What is the current consensus on the 40cal? I personally feel that a 9mm and 45 are more suited to their roles and the 40 is just kind of a bad compromise. This is based on owning a 9mm (sig p226) which was more fun to shoot and cheaper to shoot and I feel it got the lob done for everyday carry, and from the 1911 in 45acp which I find has the same or less recoil than my G22 with a much smoother feel to it although more expensive to shoot. BOTTOM LINE I just feel, personally, that the 40 is too snappy and to expensive for what i get out of it, getting ready to trade into a G19.
I DO NOT want to turn this into a 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45 debate and flame any caliber, I was just was interested in your thoughts on 40 S&W. |
|
Quoted: As long as it gets the (lob) done, I say go with what works for you. What is the current consensus on the 40cal? I personally feel that a 9mm and 45 are more suited to their roles and the 40 is just kind of a bad compromise. This is based on owning a 9mm (sig p226) which was more fun to shoot and cheaper to shoot and I feel it got the lob done for everyday carry, and from the 1911 in 45acp which I find has the same or less recoil than my G22 with a much smoother feel to it although more expensive to shoot. BOTTOM LINE I just feel, personally, that the 40 is too snappy and to expensive for what i get out of it, getting ready to trade into a G19. I DO NOT want to turn this into a 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45 debate and flame any caliber, I was just was interested in your thoughts on 40 S&W. |
|
Quoted:
I DO NOT want to turn this into a 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45 debate and flame any caliber, I was just was interested in your thoughts on 40 S&W.  Thats not going to be easy.
I still have a .40 and I like it. I've researched the ballistic testing on the big three calibers and I 'm still not a fan of the 9mm for defensive use. 9mm for sport and plinking? Absolutely. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. This. When 9mm, .45 and .380 are all gone, .40 was still on the shelves. I have 2 XD 40's and will keep them. I will also keep my 2 Glock 9's and my 1911 and XD45. |
|
Don't see what the big deal about the recoil is, I can't tell the difference between it and .45ACP.
I don't see .40 as the compromise I see 9mm and .40 as useful and .45 as inefficient. .40 and .45 have very similar ballistics but .40 has higher capacity and velocity, what is the point of .45 anymore? I'd get a 10mm if I wanted a bigger caliber since it completely outclasses .45 and has the same capacity as a .40 |
|
Your choice of quality 147 gr. JHP in a Glock 19 or other reputable service handgun... works perfectly well. I like Winchester Ranger-T's, myself.
All of the common service handgun calibers do essentially the same thing when using good ammo with a well-designed bullet. All of the major manufacturers (like Winchester, Remington, Federal, CCI/Speer, et al) make a defensive JHP load in the common service handgun calibers (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) that performs adequately in testing. There is no reason to accept penalties of increased recoil (and reduced rate of fire as a result) and decreased magazine capacity when you don't have to anymore. It would have made sense 15, 20 or more years ago to favor a larger caliber due to the state of JHP technology at the time. Bullet technology has improved significantly, with the result that we have JHP bullet designs that meet FBI standards in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, among other calibers. It still makes sense to go with bigger calibers (like .45 ACP) if all you are able to use is FMJ or low-quality/older JHP's that are likely to fail to expand. But that doesn't apply to the majority of American civilian shooters today, as most of us are able to get ammunition identical to (or equivalent to) current law enforcement ammunition that meets the accepted industry/FBI performance standards. For what it's worth, .40 S&W FMJ offers no real advantage over 9mm FMJ... you don't see much gelatin testing of .40 S&W FMJ because the performance is essentially identical to 9mm FMJ. /thread. |
|
Quoted:
What is the current consensus on the 40cal? I personally feel that a 9mm and 45 are more suited to their roles and the 40 is just kind of a bad compromise. This is based on owning a 9mm (sig p226) which was more fun to shoot and cheaper to shoot and I feel it got the lob done for everyday carry, and from the 1911 in 45acp which I find has the same or less recoil than my G22 with a much smoother feel to it although more expensive to shoot. BOTTOM LINE I just feel, personally, that the 40 is too snappy and to expensive for what i get out of it, getting ready to trade into a G19. I DO NOT want to turn this into a 9mm vs. 40 vs. 45 debate and flame any caliber, I was just was interested in your thoughts on 40 S&W. I've had my G-22 since late 1991. I have a Walther P99 in 40 as well. I'm 5'8" and not very big. I enjoy shooting the 40, but I also have reloaded since '95 and I can 'dumb' things down. If it's too much money to shoot, or you don't like the recoil impulse, there's your answer. You can either lift weights and get stronger, get a better job, or go 9mm and/or 45 and be happier. Sounds like you've already made your decision? Chris |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. This. When 9mm, .45 and .380 are all gone, .40 was still on the shelves. I have 2 XD 40's and will keep them. I will also keep my 2 Glock 9's and my 1911 and XD45. Try buying 1k rounds of 40 vs. 9mm. I wouldnt use the fact that a certain round was shunned during panic buying as an argument for that particular round. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. This. When 9mm, .45 and .380 are all gone, .40 was still on the shelves. I have 2 XD 40's and will keep them. I will also keep my 2 Glock 9's and my 1911 and XD45. Try buying 1k rounds of 40 vs. 9mm. I wouldnt use the fact that a certain round was shunned during panic buying as an argument for that particular round. Troopers and other PD's up here use .40, I don't know of any dept that uses 9mm in AK. The only 9mm cases I see around are Wolf. The cop shops keep a pretty good supply of bulk .40 from what I've seen. |
|
Never been a fan of .40S&W... seemed like a needless compromise between 9mm and .45AC. My neighbor, who has an XD 40, seems to agree after owning it for a while. Truth be told, I'm a .45 guy... the M1911A1 is still the gold standard for handgun performance and ergonomics as far as I'm concerned. My only beef is GI sights are shitty; I prefer 3 white dots or tritium night sights... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. This. When 9mm, .45 and .380 are all gone, .40 was still on the shelves. I have 2 XD 40's and will keep them. I will also keep my 2 Glock 9's and my 1911 and XD45. Try buying 1k rounds of 40 vs. 9mm. I wouldnt use the fact that a certain round was shunned during panic buying as an argument for that particular round. When Georgia Arms was posting big warnings they were short on components, and thus had no 9mm, I was able to get a case of 180gr 40 shipped to my door in less than a week. I seldom buy anything less than by the case. Yes, price difference is something to consider. $190/case for 9mm, versus $260 for 40SW. But, I also 9mm too, and can shoot it when I feel like. I am just pointing out that I prefer to have more than one pistol caliber on hand, because finding ammo can be tricky at times. Especially, if you are talking about HSTs, GDs, and the like.
|
| The .40 is not a hard kicker. You guys must have sub-girl wrist strength. I own and shoot all three of the calibers discussed pretty well and the .40 135 corbon is tied with the .357 125 as a stopper. The 9 isn't even close. The .45 230 hydrashok is also tops. It is the 9mm which is the compromise. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. Think real hard... what does that tell you? (and no, they aren't making "more" .40 than the other two calibers) |
|
Many pistols are chambered for both 9 and .40. It's a psychological thing, but I like that extra "silly millimeter."
I have shot identical pistols, 9 and 40, side by side, and either can't tell the difference in recoil, or the difference is not significant. Most of my guns are .45s, so the main role for .40, for me, is small/hideout/pocket gun. I have some 9s, but they are for fun, not carry. For SD, I'm more comfortable with something that starts with "4." |
|
Quoted: You should have at least one gun of the 3 major calibers laying around in case a shortage develops of your favorite load?Quoted: Quoted: similar to 9, but more expensive and harder to find (ammo). I could find 40SW all day long when you couldn't find a single box of 9mm during the last few ammo rushes. Think real hard... what does that tell you? (and no, they aren't making "more" .40 than the other two calibers) |
|
Quoted:
Your choice of quality 147 gr. JHP in a Glock 19 or other reputable service handgun... works perfectly well. I like Winchester Ranger-T's, myself. All of the common service handgun calibers do essentially the same thing when using good ammo with a well-designed bullet. All of the major manufacturers (like Winchester, Remington, Federal, CCI/Speer, et al) make a defensive JHP load in the common service handgun calibers (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) that performs adequately in testing. There is no reason to accept penalties of increased recoil (and reduced rate of fire as a result) and decreased magazine capacity when you don't have to anymore. It would have made sense 15, 20 or more years ago to favor a larger caliber due to the state of JHP technology at the time. Bullet technology has improved significantly, with the result that we have JHP bullet designs that meet FBI standards in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, among other calibers. It still makes sense to go with bigger calibers (like .45 ACP) if all you are able to use is FMJ or low-quality/older JHP's that are likely to fail to expand. But that doesn't apply to the majority of American civilian shooters today, as most of us are able to get ammunition identical to (or equivalent to) current law enforcement ammunition that meets the accepted industry/FBI performance standards. For what it's worth, .40 S&W FMJ offers no real advantage over 9mm FMJ... you don't see much gelatin testing of .40 S&W FMJ because the performance is essentially identical to 9mm FMJ. /thread. I think improvements in all components of a round of ammunition is going to be a trend of the next few years, including powder and even round-nose bullet designs which will make the "smaller" calibers more effective. We're already seeing that with 5.56 and the 75-77 grain projectiles taking away some of the hype and urgency from the 6.8. |
| After the hi-cap ban expired I re-evaluated my need for the 40 and decided to it would be my primary handgun caliber. My unscientific testing of 9, 40 and 45 into various materials has clearly shown the 40 to have the best penetration. When I carry I often favor the 105 & 135 frangibles (at least in the summertime) to start and minimize collateral damage and then have 180 & 200s following. A 9 can't give you that versatility. You can post numbers all day that are largely unproven (for your conditions) to compare and contrast performances. Go out and test for yourself. |
|
Quoted:
No compromises, like you said, each caliber has a role. I figured, why get a .40 if it's just a downgraded 10mm? So I got the 10, due to the excellent ballistics, but use 9mm for IPSC. I agree completely. I finally got to try a friend's 10mm Glock, and I was amazed at how controllable it was. The way some people whine about it you would think it kicked like a mule. I just wish there were more pistol options in 10mm. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I loved the idea when it first came out. And then I saw how it tended to punished the 9mm frame guns it was crammed into and became less impressed. The design and performance of hollow point 9mm ammunition has progressed greatly since the percieved need for the .40S&W round.
I haven't owned a .40 in 10 years. |
|
I went the other way....got rid of everything 9mm and .45 and now my primary pistol caliber is .40S&W
Im not a fanboy of any one particular thing....40 is a decent round that will get the job done effectively. For defense, I dont see any signficant argument that makes 40 or 45 better or worse than the other....if I had several 45's and a ton of ammo at the time I made my decision I'd have stuck with 45 and ditched my 40. As it turned out, I had a lot of .40 with several weapons in that caliber...I wanted to consolidate calibers and this is what I went with. I have no regrets. |
|
Tell ya'll what ya do...........
Pop a brother with a 9........... a .40................. and(if u can scrap up enough) a 357 then a .45 The first guy will have a lot to say, The second,not so much........... The third ain't talkin, And no way the last ones sayin shit ! ! ! ! YMMV 
|
|
Quoted:
More ammo for me. Sorry your girly wrists couldn't take it. I initially trained my wife to shoot using a Glock 17L (long slide). One day I handed her a Glock 24. (same as 17L, but in .40 S&W) She shot the entire magazine and asked if I changed ammunition on her, because the recoil was "a little different". |